Chennai Court July 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.
Abdul Hashim Sahib and ors. Vs. Kader Batcha Sahib (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ740
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the suit mortgage-deed is not supported by consideration and void, and for its cancellation. The plaint properties were mortgaged by the plaintiffs, to the 1st defendant and it has been found that the consideration money was not paid. The 1st defendant however leased one of the items to the 2nd defendant who is now in possession and it has been decided in another suit that the 2nd defendant is entitled to retain possession and that his lease is valid. The 2nd defendant's lease is based on the plaint mortagage-deed inasmuch as he is a lessee of the mortgagee and to the extent of the possession of the 2nd defendant, the mortgage-deed must be held to be valid.2. The plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed on the ground that it will not lie under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act because the document is neither void nor voidable and there is no apprehension of any injury to the plaintiffs' right. It has been contended b...
Mandavilli Rama Row, Legal Representative of Counter Vs. Sivanarayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.629
1. Petitioners in the lower Court were auction-purchaser of an undefined one-third share in items Nos. 2 to 5 in question here. The counter-petitioners purchased the whole of these properties. Petitioners asked that the counter-petitioners should be restrained from taking possession of the whole of the properties and should be allowed to take joint possession of only a two-third share on the ground that one-third had already been sold to them. The application was made under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an application clearly does not lie under Section 47, as the petitioners and counter-petitioners are cot parties to the same suit or representatives of such parties. They are auction-purchasers in Court auction under two different decrees.2. We do not think Sections 151 applies either. It is not shown that the Court had any inherent power in this matter.3. Petitioners' remedy was to bring a suit for partition and delivery of their one-third share. See Yelumala...
Amba Alias Padmavati Vs. Srinivasa Kamathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.646
1. The petition, in so far as it is for a certificate that the ease 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 Munni Ram Awasty v. Sheo Churn Awasty 4 M.I.A. 114 : 1 Sar. P.C.J. 323, Counsel (Mr. Moore) referred generally to a practice of the Courts in India granting such leave mentioning Bengal Regulation XXVIII 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. Jagadananda Asram v. Rajendra Roy 18 Ind. Cas. 129 and Ramkishen Lal v. Manna Kumri 44 Ind. Cas. 731. We respectfully adopt the grounds of the latter decision and dismiss the petition as far as it relates to leave to appeal in forma pauperis. There will be no order as to costs....
Seshi Ammal and anr. Vs. Vairavan Chettiar by His Authorised Agent Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.958; (1918)35MLJ669
John Wallis, C.J.1. The main question argued in the. appeal is as to the liability of the defendants 2 and 3, the representatives of a deceased partner of the 1st defendant for an advance of Rs. 2,301 made by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant after his partner's death to enable him to take up bills of lading for, and obtain delivery of goods, which had been ordered by the partners during the life-time of the deceased partner but did not come forward until after his death. While Section 249 Indian Contract Act makes any partner liable for all debts and obligations incurred while he is a partner in the usual course of business by or on behalf of the partnership, Section 261 provides that the estate of a partner who has died is not in the absence of an express agreement liable in respect of any obligation incurred by the firm after his death. The debt now sued for was an obligation incurred by the firm after his death and therefore is covered by the section. It is true that it was incurr...
Chavadi Ramasamia Pillai Vs. E. Venkateswara Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ531
1. It is argued that these appeals are barred by limitation on the ground that as the general provisions of the Limitation Act have been held not to apply to appeals under Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the date upon which the order appealed against was made and the Sunday upon which the ninety days allowed by Section 46 expired, cannot be excluded. Section 46 Clause (4) merely declares that ninety days shall be the period of limitation for appeals to the High Court without specifying the method of computing that period.2. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act does not directly apply to this section, in which the words 'from' and 'to' do not occur. Nevertheless we think it was intended that the computation should be done as it is usually done in appeals under other acts, seeing that no other method is prescribed, that is, that 90 days should be reckoned from the date of the order appealed against. We must therefore apply the general principle contained in Section 9 under wh...
Natesa Aiyar Vs. Sattaya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.386
1. The ruling in Koneti Naicker v. Gopala Aiyar (1) 21 Ind. Cas. 417 is not applicable to the present case, as here the 2nd defendant has signed his name with the initials of the firm of the 1st defendant and has expressly stated in the note that the debit was to be against the firm. This is not a case of mere description of the executant as an agent in the body of the note. The words used here exclude the application of Section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (XVI of 1881), as there is sufficient indication in the note that 2nd defendant was excluding his personal liability. The principal, the 1st defendant, has accepted his liability under the note, The plaintiff's case that 2nd defendant was'a partner of the 1st defendant was not established, there being no evidence for it we do not think the first Court meant to find any partnership.2. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent....
S.K. Natharsa Rowthar and anr. Vs. Sheik Muhammad Rowthar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.385
Krishnan, J.1. These civil miscellaneous second appeals arise from proceedings in Original Suit No. 93 of 1901 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Mannargudi. To understand the circumstances in which they arise, and the contentions of the parties in them, it is necessary to state the fasts at some length. Original Suit No. 93 of 1901 was for partition and delivery of plaintiff's share in certain immoveable properties with past and future mesne profits. A decree was passed directing that plaintiff do recover 63/96ths share in the plaint properties, with costs and past and future mesne profits, the amount of which was left to be determined in execution. There was an appeal and a second appeal but, except that the plaintiff's share was varied to 175/288, the decree of the first Court was confirmed. In 1910, after the new Code of Civil Procedure had come into force, plaintiff filed Execution Petition No. 228 of 1910 for the appointment of a Commissioner under Order XXVI, Rule 13, a...
Srimanth Rajah Yarlagadda Mallikharjuna Prasada Naidu Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.1000; (1918)35MLJ231
1. Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1859, which was re-enacted without material alteration in Section 487 of the Code of 1877 and in Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 of the present Code, admittedly had the effect of applying to claims in respect of attachments before judgment all the provisions of Section 246 of that Code including the final provision enabling the party against whom the order was given to bring a suit to establish his right at any time within one year from the date of the order. By the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1871 the provision as to limitation was taken out of Section 246 and dealt with in Article 15 of that Act. In the Code of 1877, Sections 278 to 283 were substituted for Section 246 of the Code of 1859. In Section 283 which corresponds to the last sentence of Section 246, the language was altered but there was nothing in the alteration from which an intention to make any of these provisions inapplicable to attachments before judgment could be inferred, nor is ...
In Re: Pydi Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.167
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a case taken up in revision by Ayling, J., on a perusal of the calendar. These persons were put up by the Police before the Joint Magistrate of Viziyanagaram in order that the Magistrate might take proceedings against them under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring them to execute bonds with sureties for their good behaviour. Now under Section 109, security can be required either on the ground that a person is taking precautions to conceal his presence and is taking such precautions with a view to committing an offence, or on the ground that a person has no ostensible means of subsistence, or cannot give a satisfactory account of himself. Then Section 110 provides that certain specially qualified Magistrates may require the execution of a similar bond with sureties for good behaviour if a person is by habit a robber, house-breaker or thief or a receiver of stolen property by habit, and so on. Now the Joint Magistrate has passed his order not...
The Sessions Judge Vs. Murappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR41Mad982
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The decision in Krishna Reddi v. subbamma I.L.R. (1901)Mad. 136 goes only to this extent that where the prosecution had pressed for the framing of a charge of a higher offence triable by the Sessions Court, even if the Subordinate Magistrate had originally taken cognizance only of a charge relating to a lesser offence, the refusal of the Magistrate to frame the charge for the higher offence might be treated as an order of discharge in respect of that offence and that Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code would, in those circumstances, give the District Magistrate jurisdiction to direct the Subordinate Magistrate to commit the accused to the Sessions on the graver charge.2. In the present case, the offence of attempt at rape was not mentioned in the police charge-sheet on which the Subordinate Magistrate took cognizance of the case and the prosecution did not press for the framing by that Magistrate of a charge against the accused in respect of that offence.3. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »