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.
V. Sreenivasa Chariar and ors. Vs. P. Kumara Thathachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.540
Spencer, J.1. I am of opinion that the learned District Judge was mistaken in applying the decisions in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Chinta Reddi 15 Ind. Cas. 378 ; 11 M.L.T. 209 to the facts of this case.2. In Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Chinta Reddi (1912) M.W.N. 393 this Court had before it an agreement, as to which there was no written record, of the exact representations of the parties, to postpone the settlement of a dispute, and to take a Small Cause suit out of the control of the Small Cause Court having jurisdiction to decide it, and to make the decision of the Small Cause suit depend upon the decision of the District Munsif in an original suit whose decision would in the ordinary course be subject to appeal. The effect of recognising such an agreement would have been to abrogate the unsuccessful party's right of appeal against the District Munsif's decision and to oust the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court in a manner not contemplated by law Accordingly the learned Judges declined...
Emperor Vs. S. Vardachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.672
1. We are quite dear that this Section 262 (of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904) read with Section 420 (of the Act) was intended to reproduce Section 264 of the old Act (The City of Madras Municipal Act, 1834), which made the new construction of an inflammable pandal or the continuance of an existing pandal, etc., of that character an offence. The pandal in question is clearly unlawful and there is no written permission of the President to legalise it. We think that the language of Section 420 (the Madras City Municipal Act, 1904), 'Whoever contravenes', is wide enough TO cover an owner and occupier of premises which offend against the section.2. We set aside the acquittal and impose a fine on the defendant of Rs. 5....
Kutti Chami Moothan and ors. Vs. Rama Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.812
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The accused belong to the 'Moothan' caste, which is one of the divisions of the Sudra caste. There is nothing to show that their caste status is less high than that of Nairs and on the other hand while most Nairs are content to call themselves Sudras, Moothana have been trying to claim the status of Vaisyas as following the profession of trade; their women are called Chettichiyars and some of them have adopted the Vaisya Surname 'Gupta'.2. The prosecution theory that while a Nair's entry into the Nallambalam of the temple does not pollute the temple or the idols in it, the entry of a Moothan does so is prima facie improbable and I may say it almost amounts to an absurdity.3. The contention that the particular custom in this temple is to make such entry an act of pollution, is sought to be proved by the evidence of Brahmin and Nair witnesses who gave no reason for their extraordinary opinion, which is clearly of very little worth.4. I would set aside the convic...
Rudravaram Venkatasubbiah Vs. Rudravaram Venkata Seshaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ387
Phillips, J.1. In this case the 1st defendant attached the plaint property before judgment in connection with a suit filed against the 3rd defendant, viz., O.S. No. 137 of 1910. The plaintiff subsquently purchased the property. The question is whether at the time of the plaintiff's purchase the property was subject to the attachment by the 1st defendant. Two points are raised now : (1) that the original attachment was invalid as having been completed after the decree in the suit was passed; and (2) that even if the attachment was valid it became an attachment in execution when the decree was sought to be executed; and ceased to exist under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 57, Civil Procedure Code. So for as the second contention is concerned, the matter is practically concluded by authority. Vide Bavuddin Sahib v. Arunachalla Mudali (1913) 26 M.L.J. 215 Ganesh Chandra Adak v. Banwari Lal Roy (1912) 14 I.C. 345, and Kosuri Suraparaju v. Mandapaka Narasimham (1914) 26 I.C. 81. No doubt ...
Thangi Shettithi Vs. Duja Shetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ575
1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether plaintiff's application for the execution of the revised mortgage-decree for sale in O.S. No. 57 of 1909 is barred by/limitation or not. The application was made more than three years from the date of that decree but plaintiff relies on his E.P. No. 17 of 1914 as giving him a fresh starting point under Clause 5 of Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The lower courts have differed in their view on the question whether that petition can be treated as one made in accordance with law for execution or to take some step in aid of execution the Subordinate Judge holding in the affirmative and the District Judge in the negative. The decree-holder is the appellant before us. To understand the nature of his contention it is necessary to state the circumstances in which E.P. No. 17 of 1914 came to be put in.2. Plaintiff sued the defendants who are members of an Aliya-santhana family for the recovery of her mortgage-money by sale of t...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ410
SKrishnan, J.1. In this case plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, a small plot of land in the village of Thuhili with Rs. 35 as damages for the demolition of a cattle shed on it. In his plaint he alleges that the land in question belongs to him, that in any event he has acquired a title to it by adverse possession for over 60 years, that he hid leased it out to his tenant one Appaswami Chetty, and that while it was in the latter's possession, the Collector of Tanjore issued notice to his tenant under Madras Act III of 1905 and evicted him. wrongly treating the land as Government property and that the Defendant's Revenue Inspector demolished the cattle shed on it which also belonged to plaintiff. He asserts that these poceed ngs are not valid and binding on him and seeks to recover possession of the land with damages as above stated. He puts his cause of action as arising in June 1914 on the date of eviction and states that even if t...
S.A. Chelappa Chetty Vs. E. Pr. Vr. S. Subramania Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.948
John Wallis, C.J.1. Two questions arise in this appeal. The first question is whether the defendants Nos. to 5, with whom the suit deposit was made, were justified in acting on the order of the 6th defendant to transfer the deposit which was in the name of the plaintiff to the name of the plaintiff's wife, because the deposit had been made with them in the plaintiff's name maral the 6th defendant. Maral literally means that the deposit had been made on the recommendation or introduction of the 6th defendant Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have treated it as if it meant that the money was deposited to the order of the 6th defendant, so that the 6th Defendant was authorised to operate on the deposit although it was in the name of the plaintiff. In Appeal No. 17 of 1913 there was some discussion on the meaning of the word maral and it was suggested that it might mean that the money could not be withdrawn by the person in whose name it had been deposited without the consent of the person under whos...
In Re: the Sessions Judge of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.674; (1918)35MLJ259
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Tanjore asking us to quash the commitment made to his court by the third class magistrate of Arantangi. The accused are four in number, the charge against the 1st and 3rd accused being that they committed offences under Section 193, 465, 466 and 471, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the document Ex. D, and the charge against accused 1, 2 and 4 being that they committed similar offences in connection with the document, Ex. N. The order of the Magistrate committing the accused falls under Section 213(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Before the Sessions Judge it was argued by the Public Prosecutor that under the provisions of Section 531 and 537, Criminal Procedure Code, a superior court had no power to set aside the Magistrate's order of commitment, granting that the Arantangi Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction over the place where the 3rd and 4th accused are alleged to have committed the offences and g...
The Sessions Judge of Coimbatore Vs. in Re Marappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ667
ORDER1. The decision in Krishna Reddiv. Subbamma I.L.R. (1900) 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 to a charge relating to a lessor 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. The Sessions Ju...
In Re: Marappa Goundan the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: 47Ind.Cas.669
ORDER1. The decision in Krishna Reddi v. Subbamma 2 Weir 544 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 cognisance 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. The Sessions Judge was,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »