Chennai Court April 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.
Thimma Reddi Vs. Subba Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.141
Sadasiya Aiyar, J.1. The 3rd and 4th plaintiffs' (decree-holders') assignee is the appellant before us. The material facts may be shortly stated thus. The 1st and the 2nd plaintiffs were partners of the joint decree holders with the appellant's assignors, namely, the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. The decree was passed in favour of all the four plaintiffs in 1908 for a certain sum of money. There was an adjustment of the decree amount between the defendants and the plaintiffs at Rs 435 and that sum was paid up to all the four plaintiffs in 1909 by the defendants through one Muthia Thevan, The decree was thus really satisfied but a certificate of satisfaction was not filed by all or any of the four plaintiffs till December 1911 and hence the ' executing Court could not recognize the satisfaction till then.,2. In 1910 the four plaintiffs dissolved the partnership and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 1 respectively executed release deeds in February 1910 and February 1911 in respect of the partnership...
In Re: Savarajulu Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.445
ORDEROldfield, J.1. The undisputed facts are that the three accused, resenting complainant's conduct, entered the house, where he was working and attacked him. His ear-rings were removed, one being cut off with his right ear and the other torn from his left. The accused were originally convicted, 1st accused of offences punishable under Sections 826 and 392, Indian Penal Code, 2nd accused under Sections 326, 325 and 109 and 3rd accused under Sections 325 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, for reasons which are not clear, substituted convictions under Sections 325 and 392 with 109 as regards 1st accused.2. The first objection to this, that the convention should be under Section, 223, not 325, must be sustained. The only grievous hurt disclosed by the evidence is the' injury to the right ear. For the left ear has healed and is intact. But the learned Sessions Judge conceded in effect that identification of the accused, who caused that injury, was impossible on ...
Meenakshisundara Mudaliar Alias Thyagaraja Mudaliar and Vaithilinga Pi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ489
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The defendants in the suit have appealed from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam by which he directed specific performance of an agreement (Exhibit A) executed by the 1st defendant on 31st October 1914 in favour of the plaintiff. The first point taken is that the transaction in question was an agreement to grant a lease and as it was not registered it could not be specifically enforced. The second and alternative objection to the decree, is that supposing it to be an agreement to execute a mortgage as found by the Subordinate Judge, even then all that the plaintiff will be entitled to would be damages and not a decree for specific performance.2. As regards the first question we have been referred to a number of decisions some of which seem to be inconsistent with the others, but it is not necessary to discuss them in any detail. In none of these cases, the question arose with reference to the application of the Registration Act. In most of , them the natu...
Sree Bhanireddi Venkan Doragaru and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.844
1. The plaintiffs brought this suit against Government for a declaration, that the sale of the villages of Peddipalum and Ankampalum in their Peddipalum Mokhasa for arrears of Revenue was illegal and to recover the property from the 2nd defendant, who purchased it at the revenue sale. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit because he found that the plaintiffs had no case on the merits fend because the suit was, in his opinion, barred by limitation. The plaintiffs appeal.2. There is no dispute about the fact that this Mokhasa was held by the grantees and their heirs upon a favourable jodi or quit rent on condition of rendering military service and that it was liable to be subjected to the payment of full assessment in case of any alienation of the land; that in December 1906 the Government imposed full assessment on the ground that there had been such alienation, and that in March 1907 these villages were sold by an officer of Government purporting to act under the sections of Madras ...
Malraju Lakshimi Venkayamma Rao Garu Vs. Meka Venkataramiah Appa Rao B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.862
Oldfield, J.1. The question raised relates to an award of costs. As regards the Rs. 100 awarded, as' I read the order, for costs incurred before it, the lower. Court seems to have exercised its discretion and it is not shown to have done so in any respect unjudicially. With such' an exercise it is not open to me to interfere in revision.2. There is, however, in the order no reference to the costs incurred by 3rd defendant in this Court or to the fact that the order of this Court, remanding the case, directed that costs before it should abide and follow the result. It is urged on the one hand that the lower Court had no choice but to give effect to this order; on the other that (1) it has used its discretion to refrain from doing so; (2) there was nothing in this Court's order by which that discretion was taken away. Reference to the lower Court's order shows that it did not mention expressly or impliedly costs in this Court and that, to judge by its tenor, only costs before itself were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›