Chennai Court July 1918 Judgments
Chinnaswami Reddi Vs. Krishnaswami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ652
Phillips, J.1. Apart from the fact that the plaintiff has by his action precluded the court from ordering an exchange between the parties of the lands sold to plaintiff by the mother of defendants 1 and 2, and the lands purchased by her in Sriperumbudur, I think that it follows from the finding that the purchase of the lands in Sriperumbudur was not contemplated at the time of the sale to plaintiff, that those lands do not constitute the benefit received by defendants 1 and 2 from plaintiff within the meaning of Section 64 of the Contract Act. I therefore agree in the order proposed.Kumaraswami Sastri, J.2. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for possession of the house-site specified in the plaint. The case for the plaintiff is that the mother of the 1st and 2nd defendants acting as their guardian sold to him certain properties consisting inter alia of the site specified in the plaint for the purpose of purchasing other properties, that the defendants have not put plaintiff in pos...
Tag this Judgment!Garuda Sanyasayya Vs. Nerella Murthenna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ661
1. This is a suit for the removal of the 1st defendant from the trusteeship of a certain charity and for settling a scheme - of' management. The District Judge directed his removal and framed a scheme. In the appeal to this Court a large number of questions were argued. We agree in the main with the conclusions on facts come to by the learned District Judge. We hold that there was a dedication of the choultry to charity under Ex. E. We see no vagueness in the trust-deed and we further agree with the District Judge that the whole of the choultry, not simply a portion of it, was dedicated to the charity.2. Mr. Narayanamurthi argued two questions of law, on which it is necessary to say a few words. We do not agree with him that the plaintiffs are not entitled to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, They are residents of the locality in which the choultry is situated and are members of the community for whose benefit the charity was founded. In our opinion, thes...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Veera Sree Veeradhi Veera Vara Pratapa Sree, Kurupamaya Ananga Bh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.811
Spencer, J.1. This is a petition under Rule 20 of the Ganjam and Vizagapatam Agency Rules requesting this Court to direct the Agent to review his judgment in a civil appeal. The suit was one brought against the Zemindar of Bodokimidi to obtain damages for breach of contract and was filed in the Court of the Agent to the Governor in Ganjam. The Agent after settling issues referred the suit for the decision of the Special Assistant Agent, Berhampore Division. From his decree in the plaintiff's favour there was an appeal to the Agent, who confirmed the Special Assistant's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs.2. The suit arose out of an agreement entered into by the parties in September 1915, whereby it was arranged that the plaintiff should out and take timber for railway sleepers from the defendant's forests for a term of four years and pay royalty to the defendant upon the timber so removed.3. One of the conditions was that the defendant Zemindar was to send a forest officer or ...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Mallappa Vs. Matan Naga Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ555
John Wallis, C.J.1. A subsequent agreement to take less than is due under a registered mortgage is clearly an agreement modifying the terms of a written contract; and, if it has to be proved, oral evidence is inadmissible under the 4th proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is designed to protect parties to registered instruments from false cases of subsequent modification of the original contract being set up and supported by oral evidence. If the subsequent agreement in this case has to be proved, oral evidence is clearly inadmissible. The contention however, is that it has not to be proved, as it is admitted in the pleadings. Part II of the Evidence Act deals with proof, and Chapter III, which is the first chapter of Part II, with 'Facts which need not be proved.' Under Section 58 of this chapter, among the facts which need not be proved, are facts admitted in the pleadings, such as the subsequent agreement now in question. Evidence is tendered in proof of facts in ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.364
1. The first question raised for our decision in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether the plaint discloses a proper cause of action. The learned Government Pleader for the appellant relies on the Full Bench ruling in the Secretary of State ; v. Illikkal Assan 32 Ind. Cas. 755: (1916) 1 M.W.N. 167 and contends that it does not.2. The plaint, as now amended, bases the cause of action on a notice given to the plaintiffs by the Sub-Collector of Tirupattur, Exhibit I under Section 6% Clause 2 of Act III of 1905, as modified in appeal under Section 20 of that Act by the District Collector. Exhibit I directed toe plaintiffs to demolish within 20 days four anicuts which they had erected in the Pachal river and to 'withdraw from the said unauthorised occupation' and stated 'if you fail to do so, you will be evicted from the said anicuts and they will be demolished.' The Collector modified this notice by confining the order to demolish to three anicuts and by directing the levy of penal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ripon Press and Sugar Mill Company, Ltd. by Its Chairman of the Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ256
1. This appeal raised an interesting question of the law of limitation as to which so far as we are aware, there is as yet no authority in India, namely, as to the period of limitation for a suit by a shareholder against a registered company to recover dividends. In England it is well settled that a dividend is a specialty debt for which a period of 20 years is allowed by 3 and 4 William 4, C 42, Section 3. This was first pointed out by Lord Justice Christian in Smith v. The Cork and Bandon Ry. Co. (1870) Ir. Rep. 5 Eq 65 which has been followed in later cases and in England in In re Artisan's Land and Mortgage Corporation (1904) 1 Ch. 796.2. In India, we have to look to the provisions of our Limitation Act. The right to receive a dividend which has been duly declared is one of the rights of every share-holder by virtue of the contract which he is deemed to have entered into with all the members of the Company under Section 39 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. The terms of that contra...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Mahomed Sheriff Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ27
1. The Bench Magistrates are, no doubt, right in saying that according to Queen Empress v. Ayyahannu Mudaliar I.L.R. (1898) M. 298 the several words, used in Clause (1)(1) of Section 188 of the District Municipalities Act ' should be reasonably construed. ' But the reasonable construction indicated in the decision is that if the element of letting out on hire is involved in the use of the places indicated by the words, the legislature intended that such places should fall under the section and a license ought to be taken out for keeping such a place and the omission to take out a license should be punished.2. The decision in The Public Prosecutor v. Maduvoaluth Gopal Cr. Appeal No. 408 of 1902 reported in 1 Weir 737, is clearly applicable, the principle involved in that decision being, in our opinion the same as that on which Queen Empress v. Ayyakannu Mudaliar I.L.R. (1898) M. 298 was decided. Whether it is a single horse or more than one horse kept for hire in a stable, we think that...
Tag this Judgment!Ripon Press and Sugar Mill Company, Limited, by Its Chairman of the Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.903
1. This appeal raised an interesting question on the law of limitation as to which; so far as we are aware, there is as yet no authority in India, namely, as to the period of limitation for a suit by a share-holder against a registered company to recover dividends. In England, it is well settled that a dividend is a speciality debt for which a period of 20 years is allowed by 3 & 4 William 4, Ch. 42, Section 3. This was first pointed out by Lord Justice Christian in Smith v. Cork & Bandon Railway Co. (1870) Ir. Rep. 5 Eq. 65, which has been followed in later oases and in England in In Re: Artisans Land & Mortgage Corporation (1904) 1 Ch.D. 796.2. In India, we have to look to the provisions of our Limitation Act. The right to receive a dividend which has been duly declared is one of the rights of every share-holder by virtue of the contract which he is deemed to have entered into with all the members of the Company under Section 39 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. The terms of that co...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Alias Padmavati Vs. Shrinivasa Kamthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ258
1. The petition in so far as it is for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to his Majesty in Council is not opposed. We certify accordingly under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petition is further for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. In Munny Rama Awasty v. Sheo Charan Awasty (1847) 4 M.I.A. 114 Counsel (Mr. Moore) referred generally to a practice of the courts in India granting such leave mentioning Bengal Regulation 28 of 1814. But no precedent for its grant has been proved in this Court and the authority of decisions in other High Courts is against it. Jagadanand Asram v. Rajendra Roy (1912) 17 C.L.J. 381 and Ramakishin Lal v. Manna Kumri (1916) Pat. L.J. 179. We respectfully adopt the grounds of the latter decision and dismiss the petition so far as it relates to leave to appeal in forma pauperis. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chinnaswami Pillai and ors. Vs. Appaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ512
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. On the date of the, suit they were the reversionary heirs of one Chandram Pillai who died in about 1890 leaving a widow as his next heir and a daughter as the next expectant heir after the widow. A son was born to the daughter in 1893. When he was a year old the widow and the daughter executed the surrender-deed Exhibit I, dated 2nd April 1894 in his favour, he being represented by his father and guardian, the 1st defendant. That document was a complete surrender of all the rights of the two executants in the estate of the last male owner Chandram Pillai. But there is a provision in the document that the 1st defendant as guardian of his infant son and the infant himself after he attained majority, should protect the two executants, meaning evidently that they should be maintained. The infant died about 2 years afterwards, say in 1896, and the plaintiffs now sue for the recovery of the properties from the 1st defendant, the widow a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »