Chennai Court September 1918 Judgments
In Re: Mr. A. Seetharamiah, Second Grade Pleader, Practising in the Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ650
1. In this case the District Judge of Ganjam has reported to the High Court that the respondent has been convicted of keeping a common gaming house in Berhampore Town, an offence under Section 6 of the Towns Nuisances Act, III of 1889, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100. The District Judge has followed the procedure prescribed with regard to charges under Sections 13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act by issuing a notice, framing a charge and hearing the respondent although strictly speaking, that procedure is not required in cases, such as this, which come under Section 12 of. the Act, Section 12 empowers the High Court to ' suspend or dismiss any pleader or muktear holding a certificate issued under Section 7 who is convicted for any criminal offence implying a defect in character which unfits him to be a pleader or muktear, as the case may be.' The decision of the Privy Council in In the matter of Rajendra Nath Mukherjee I.L.R. (1899) All. 49 shows that we are not now to re-try t...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Ramasami Mannadi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.507; (1919)36MLJ313
Abdur Rahim, J.1. I entirely agree with the judgment of the learned Chief Justice and will only shortly give my reasons for the conclusion I have arrived at. The plaintiffs obtained a lease for 17 years of a certain garden from the owner of the property, the 1st defendant in the suit. The document provides that the plaintiffs are to discharge a prior encumbrance to the extent of Rs. 2,805 besides making two other small payments. They failed to discharge the encumbrance, and the mortgagee, whose debt they had bound themselves to discharge, brought a suit to enforce the mortgage and obtained a decree. In the meantime, while the suit was pending, the 1st defendant granted a usufructuary mortgage to defendants Nos. 4 to 7 and with the money so realised the mortgage decree was paid off. The Subordinate Judge in the Court of trial held that, since the plaintiffs failed to pay the amount stipulated for in the document, they were not entitled to possession of the properties, which was their ch...
Tag this Judgment!Kottarathil Puthiyapurayil Pokker Vs. Balathil Parkum Chandrankandi Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.714; (1919)36MLJ226
Ayling, J.1. In this case the Lower Appellate Court seems to me to have erred in supposing that unless the contested sale-deed, Exhibit V, is merely a sham transaction, the present suit is not maintainable. The ruling quoted, Palaniandi Ghetty v. Appavu Chettiar : (1916)30MLJ265 if examined, does not support such a view; nor does the later Full Bench ruling Subramania Iyer v. Muthia Chettiar I.L.R. (1917) M. 612 : 33 M.L.J. 705 which considered the same question, and to which I Was a party.2. What was decided in these cases was this : that, where the validity of an alienation is impugned on the ground that it offends against Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, that alienation must be upheld until it is set aside in proceedings properly instituted for the purpose. The exact nature of the proceedings which should be instituted was not determined. In Palaniandi Chetty v. Appavu Chettiar : (1916)30MLJ265 Coutts Trotter, J., expressed the opinion that a creditor suing to set aside a...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mamshah Thaika Through Syed Sultan Moideen Sahib Inamdar Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1918
Reported in: (1919)37MLJ213
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. So far as the relief for a declaration of the plaintiff's (Appellant's) title is concerned his right to sue for such relief accrued once for all when his title was first definitely and finally denied to his knowledge (See Thirumala Rao v. Jungamma Shettithi (1914) M.W.N. 197) and the actual levy of penal assessment from him is clearly such an unequivocal denial of title on the part of Government. The notice of eviction under Section 9 of Act III of 1905 also involves a denial of title but it would not give a fresh starting point of limitation for declaratory relief, and limitation runs from the date of the first denial of title itself and continues to run. Hence the claim for the declaratory relief is barred in this case as penal assessment was levied more than months before suit. 1 however hnd that the declaration is not prayed for in the plaint as a substantial relief, the injunction relief claimed being alone valued at ten rupees and court-fees of twelve annas p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gurumurthi Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.988
ORDERKumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The petitioner obtained in April 1917 a license Exhibit C, which licensed him to possess and sell fireworks. It limited the maximum quantity possessed at any time to (fifty) 50 lbs. In August 1917 he obtained the permit Exhibit B to possess fireworks not exceeding 1,000 lbs. for a period of seven days from 7th November 1917 to 13th November 1917. In October 1917 he got a license Exhibit A to import 10,000 lbs. of fireworks, the license being valid till 31st December 1917. He was charged and convicted for possessing 2,325 lbs. of China crackers on 7th November 1917 and thus contravening the terms of the license Exhibit B. His plea before the Magistrate was as follows: 'I admit what I did is wrong I did so misunderstanding the rules. I am guilty.' He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 which, on appeal, was reduced to Rs. 50.2. Two points are urged in revision. It is argued (1) that China crackers are not explosives, and (2) that the license to import bei...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Leslie Rogers Vs. A.R. Hajee Fakir Muhammad Sait (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ673
John Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals from two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund awarding the two plaintiffs damages against the same defendant for alleged slander by falsely and maliciously publishing the following words : ' I have been poisoned and I suspect the Saits are at the bottom of it,' meaning thereby that the Saits had instigated the alleged poisoning. The Subordinate Judge has found publication proved in three instances, that the occasion was not privileged, that, if it was, the defendant was actuated by malice, and also apparently that he was never ill at all and never believed himself poisoned, The defendant from April 1913 had been in the service of the plaintiff's firm at Ootacamund as general manager of their office and planting estates. The evidence in this case shows, what is brought out more fully in the case of wrongful dismissal, that his relations with his employers towards the end of November 1914 were very bad, and that they did not wish to retain ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Sivan and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ203
Spencer, J. 1. These second appeals are brought against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam confirming the judgment of the District Munsif of Valangiman dismissing two suits instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Council for the recovery of portions of poramboke land comprised in Survey No. 95/2 corresponding to paimash N. 809 in the village of Govindapuram from which the plaintiffs were evicted by order of Government officers under the provisions of Act III of 1905, and for damages for the unlawful felling of trees standing upon the said land.2. The village of Govindapuram is a whole inam village granted in 1809 by Pratap Singh Rajah Saheb, one of the former rulers of Tanjore. The entire village was granted to the inamdars ' in free tenure, exempt entirely from payment of revenue or rent,' which is the meaning of sarvamanyam. The original grant is not available but we have the title-deed (Ex. E) issued by the Inam Commissioner in 1865, wherein the grant...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Rama Krishna Naidu and anr. Vs. S.V. Krishnaswmi Naidu (Dead) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1918
Reported in: (1919)36MLJ641
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The facts are a little complicated. Though the decision of this second appeal ultimately depends upon our opinion on a pure question of law, it is necessary to state the material facts for clearly dining the legal question.2. The plaintiff and the defendants are neighbours, the plan Exhibit III showing their respective houses and house sites. Roughly we might say that the plaintiff's house and his vacant site are west and north of the defendant's house and backyard site.3. In the plaintiff's vacant site (north of defendants' house and west of the defendants' back yard) there is situated a well marked A which well is common to both the plaintiff and the defendants. In 1905 the plaintiff tried to enclose the well by walls so as to give the defendants access only to the southeastern half of the circumference of the wall (and not to the remaining north-western half) from the defendant's back door (in the northern wall of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Sivan and Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.360
Spencer, J.1. These second appeals are brought against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam confirming the judgment of the District Munsif of Valangiman dismissing two suits instituted against the Secretary of State for India in Council for the recovery of portions of poramboke land comprised in Survey No. 95/2 corresponding to Paimash No. 809 in the village of Govindapuram, from which the plaintiff were evicted by order of Government officers under the provisions of Act III of 1915, and for damages for the unlawful felling of trees standing upon the said land.2. The village of Govindapuram, is a whole inam village granted in 1809 by Pratap Singh Raja Sahib, one of the former rulers of Tanjore. The entire village was granted to the inamdars 'in free tenure, exempt entirely from payment of revenue or rent,' which is the meaning of Sarvamaniyam. The original grant is not available, but we have the title deed (Exhibit E) issued by the Inam Commissioner in 1865, wherein the ...
Tag this Judgment!Patrachariar Vs. T.R.M.S. Ramaswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.734
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The facts found are that he was the paid agent of the plaintiff Ramaswami Chetti in the year 1911, that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor to whom the plaint house belonged, and that in execution of that decree the plaint house was sold and purchased by the 1st defendant with his master's money in his hands and for the benefit of his master (the plaintiff) though without the knowledge of his master. The sale certificate was issued to the 1st defendant and he got delivery for his master in 1912. The plaintiff afterwards dismissed the 1st defendant from his service. Till such dismissal the 1st defendant's intention was to hold possession of the house for his master and the master adopted and ratified the purchase. On his dismissal he refused to vacate for the first time and then this suit was brought to eject him. The legal defence set up by the 1st defendant (appellant before us) is that Section 66 (1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »